While I agree with most of your comments I worry sbout those ISPs providing poor customer service that decide the money spent on investigation can not be justified therefore accepting whatever someone tells them - and possibly causing losses to people who are actually being incorrectly identified.

What if a competitor decides to point out YOU as a file sharer and the ISP you are using simply disconnect your business because it is cheaper than having a team to investigate accusations?

I agree with the principle, I don't agree with the way it is decribed/implemented.

First geeks will use encrypted traffic to hide their actions from the ISP's then the not so geeky will learn how to do it after that it will become general knowledge. The pirates will slow down for about 3 - 5 months then things will keep on the way they are now.

McDave - I don't agree with you about the power company example or your example about dairies and cigarettes - but that is fine.

"No, the entertainment industry have adopted many new-tech ways of distributing media legally as proved by iTunes' success. This is about pirates trying to justify theft & the copyright holders & ISPs protecting their businesses.

Will it stop the problem - no.

Yes, it will. This is New Zealand & ISP hoppers will run out of ISPs, credit cards/bank accounts etc."

I was meaning that the entainment industry has been plagued by bootlegging since the sixties and the use of p2p technology is the latest method of bootlegging. Removing the p2p option will make the process slower, but people will still buy cheap ripoff dvd's in the markets, from chatrooms, yahoo groups etc.

The industry needs to find a better solution to the problem - the Itunes model is a good start. It has limitations however with the main one being the use of mp3 format which reduces the quality of the music.

One of the sad things about this, is that a good number of music groups are happy for audiences to record and exchange their shows. They figure that the more people listening to their music, the more people come to the shows and buy their studio albums. The situation with movies is different from this of course.

IMHO the problem here isn't the end goal of the law which is to stop piracy. It is the the fact you are presumed guilty with no chance to defend yourself.

As many others will know complaints to ISP's over particular users downloading copyrighted material isn't anything new. WxC have been the only ISP passing these on to users and from the posts we have had gere in GZ complaining about this (I'd estimate around 10 users) I don't recall a single person saying they weren't downloading copyrighted material. The general feeling has been that they didn't think WxC should be threatening them with disconnection just because they were breaking the law.

Now here's my complaint - the entertainment industry has been using some very dodgy tactics to track these users. We've already had a case of some guys who received a DCMA takedown notice for their office laser printer as it was accused of downloading copyrighed material.

How many people have ever been convicted in a court by the RIAA for illegal music downloads?

0, zero, none, zilch.

That's right - in the USA despite all the effots these organisations have gone to they have never convicted a single user. There has only been one case where a jury found the defendant guilty (Jammie Thomas) and this was overtuned by the judge late last year. The RIAA decided not to appeal, presumably in case they lost yet again. The tactics used by these people has been questioned by numerous courts.

In a nutshell they have admitted their evidence can't prove without a doubt that an infringement did occur. This is the problem. Is is the fact an ISP here will be forced with no option but to act on evidence (and potentially disconnect your connection) that has been regarded by numerous jurys in court trials in America as being without basis. Therein lies the problem. You're being accused of a crime and are found guilty with no chance to defend yourself.

Imagine if the Police here started sending out speed camera tickets but could not provide you with evidence that the offence occured. You couldn't challenge the ticket or say somebody else was driving because you don't get a photo. Maybe it wasn't even your car but a similair licence plate - you'd have no defence but simply have to pay the ticket. If this happened there would be an outcry and yet it's the exact same scenario as is happening here.

Disconnecting users is only part of the solution. Piracy is wrong but it won't stop piracy from happening. The industry as a whole needs to look at themselves and actually work out why people are downloading material.

Is it because they don't want to pay? Maybe. But look at iTunes. It's very successful. The reality is here in NZ it's impossible to download movies or TV shows that are available legally in other parts of the world. Would people pay for this content? Quite possibly they would. When they have no choice but to pirate material to access it it's just plain stupid. The industry as a whole failed to embrace the digital age and trying to stick to the same dated business models simply isn't going to help them move forward.

freitasm: I think the bigger risk here is that smaller ISPs will see this "investigation" ("check their logs comparing the date/time/ipaddress") as too costly and simply skip it - in effect assuming that anyone fingered by those "media police" are guilt by default and then proceed to disconnect people even when it's not the case.

We both know how ISPs really treat their customers in some cases...

Yep WXC have already proven the easiest tactic a small ISP can take is to simply disconnect the customer.

Just for everyone's information, here's what I introduced (unsuccessfully) in the House today and here's my release. Labour takes the copyright issue very seriously and is listening and wanting to be constructive:

Despite official advice on the importance of finding a solution to the copyright issue, the National Government today missed an opportunity to take steps in that direction when it refused leave for an Amendment Bill to the Copyright Act to be introduced.

Labour spokesperson for communications and information technology Clare Curran today sought leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Act to ensure a workable code of practice was in place with the approval of the relevant Minister before Section 92A comes into force.

"Despite indications of support from most other parties, the National Party refused leave and is now sitting on its hands on the copyright issue," Curran said.

"Ministry of Economic Development senior officials in today's Commerce Select Committee said this was an issue of high priority and needed to be addressed quickly by the government," she said.

Section 92A of the Copyright Act is due to come into effect on 28 Feb. More time is required for the affected parties to negotiate the issues and reach agreement on a workable code that upholds the principles copyright protects while not placing an unreasonable burden on the internet service providers.

Labour considered a variety of measures including delaying the enactment of the clause, however, only the government can do this by revisiting the date of commencement and I call on Commerce Minister Simon Power to do so urgently.

"The Copyright (Internet Service Provider Account Termination Policy) Amendment Bill creates a mechanism for developing guidelines, something not included in the existing legislation. This Bill therefore proposed to amend section 92A to include the following clause:

"(3) A policy as required by subsection (1) must be in accordance with guidelines developed by industry groupings representing the interests of telecommunications carriers and rights holders and agreed by the responsible Minister.

"The effect of this would have ensured that the parties would have developed guidelines before the section became effective.

"I intend to submit the Bill to the ballot as a Private Member's Bill so that these issues can be addressed.

"It is in keeping with the objective of the Act which is to ensure a robust intellectual property rights system for the continuing growth of New Zealand's creative and innovative sectors.

"The wider issue of the future of copyright law in a digital age is complex and fast changing. In order for the Section 92A to be effective, a workable code of practice between the rights holders and the internet service providers must be achieved.

"There is widespread and growing support for an education campaign around the complex issue of copyright. It's time the government took action on this issue," said Curran.

Spenser: I was meaning that the entainment industry has been plagued by bootlegging since the sixties and the use of p2p technology is the latest method of bootlegging. Removing the p2p option will make the process slower, but people will still buy cheap ripoff dvd's in the markets, from chatrooms, yahoo groups etc.

I suspect a crack-down on on the physical media will ensue presently though this shouldn't distract us from the case in point.

The industry needs to find a better solution to the problem - the Itunes model is a good start. It has limitations however with the main one being the use of mp3 format which reduces the quality of the music.

So what are you saying? We don't like the format, so we're justified to steal it? The iTunes store discontinued the use of MP3 years ago - before it was available outside the US (after all it's the standard that failed to make it to VCDs in 1990!). Today they sell music in 256Kbps MPEG-4/AAC which, to everyone but audiophiles, is apparently indiscernable from a CD & has no DRM - so it's available in a better format than most P2P sources. No excuses.

One of the sad things about this, is that a good number of music groups are happy for audiences to record and exchange their shows. They figure that the more people listening to their music, the more people come to the shows and buy their studio albums. The situation with movies is different from this of course.

Of course they don't care, they're not putting the work into promotion & distribution of the media, they get paid to originate &/or perform the music - they are not the market. If left to their own devices the markets & revenues for all but a few token tracks would be miniscule the only reason we know about the music is because of the promotion & distribution machinery, this costs money, lots of money and it's what's at stake. Groups that don't want this are free to sign with studios of their choice or not at all but I suspect we won't here much about them.

Why do these all sound like excuses? I suspect whatever services are put in you'll still have excuses but out of interest, how would you stop the theft?

McD, I think you may not know much about the music industry. Read up on it. Start with The Grateful Dead. Then maybe read about what Wilco did after their record company refused to distribute Yankee Hotel Foxtrot.... the music industry does not do much promotion and development of artists, they try to pick winners and pay the radio stations to promote their picks.

I don't condone theft. I don't have an answer to their problem, I don't work in that industry.

sbiddle: Imagine if the Police here started sending out speed camera tickets but could not provide you with evidence that the offence occured. You couldn't challenge the ticket or say somebody else was driving because you don't get a photo. Maybe it wasn't even your car but a similair licence plate - you'd have no defence but simply have to pay the ticket. If this happened there would be an outcry and yet it's the exact same scenario as is happening here.

What makes you think that's not already happening? Have you contested a speeding ticket? Besides, the 'offenders' aren't being penalised, the ISP are excercising the right to walk away and they'll give us three chances to stop!

Disconnecting users is only part of the solution. Piracy is wrong but it won't stop piracy from happening. The industry as a whole needs to look at themselves and actually work out why people are downloading material.

Er - maybe because stealing is free?

Is it because they don't want to pay? Maybe. But look at iTunes. It's very successful. The reality is here in NZ it's impossible to download movies or TV shows that are available legally in other parts of the world. Would people pay for this content? Quite possibly they would. When they have no choice but to pirate material to access it it's just plain stupid. The industry as a whole failed to embrace the digital age and trying to stick to the same dated business models simply isn't going to help them move forward.

I agree, we need better download services (iTunes offers a stack of movies to buy or rent but there are limitations) but supply limitations don't justify theft, the providers have the right to decide where and how they want to sell their products just as you decide what you want to buy.

McD - you are missing the point. This legislation removes a fundamental principle of our legal system - you are innocent until proven guilty.

You are not guilty because the complainant says you are. The judicial process determines whether or not you have acted illegally.

This will help you with what this issue is about - http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/back-on-the-oia-trail-s92a-this-time/

Then read this and you should understand why S92A will be so dangerous and unworkable - http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:SXrxaep9jdIJ:dmca.cs.washington.edu/uwcse_dmca_tr.pdf+p2p+DCMA+detection&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=nz

But read about Wilco first - and check out their music.....but you will struggle to find them in the record stores... because they don't do pop hits and the record companies want instant hits and the $$$ that the hits bring.